So science is invalid if it involves too many feelings ? I guess we better close the psychology departments nationwide. Let's shut history departments too, because they too involve way, way to many societal trends, which are often quite a bit more nebulous than any statistical experiment...
Humans are not "magically" beyond the reach of science, and neither are feelings, or actions of persons.
Is illustrating dumb statistical mistakes useful somehow ? I obviously assumed that there are no statistical mistakes involved in the relevant studies.
Obviously you need sufficient data, over a sufficiently long period of time.
(and to be honest I can imagine hurricane damage necessitating government savings, and therefore teacher layoffs, so a (very) weak correlation is indeed not out of the question)
It only shows _some_ connection, which may be very convoluted (but always real) between 2 data SETS (and 1 data point, like you gave, obviously proves nothing, there are rules about that) (and before you say it, one studies equals obviously exactly the amount of data points they claim to have researched, excepting fraud)
To be exact, correlation implies one of 3 things :
- Causation - Caused-by (passive) - Shared-cause
So translated to, if criminals correlate to players of violent games this means one of 3 things : 1) Playing games causes crime 2) Crime causes playing game 3) Playing violent games and criminal behavior have the same cause
Right now they're "assuming" 1) is fact. Since 2 seems unlikely in the extreme, the other is 3, which means that if you try to buy a violent game, regardless of any other factor, it would be a good idea to arrest you, since you probably already are a criminal (instead of merely more prone to violent behavior)
You expect the people (ie. the government) to expect something back from "stimuli", piles of cash. Probably you mean something other than the customary (in Chicago, at least) "election" support like slanted coverage.
You must be missing the Bush administration already...
That ship sailed when "I have no opinion one way or the other, but don't you really hate THAT guy ?" got elected.
People don't hate Jesus. They hate reality. They hate that God has power they will never have, and America's about to find out that God's laws are entirely unlike human laws.
The country WILL fail due to unreasonable spending by the Obama adminstration, no matter how much money is printed "trying to avert it" (that's Obama-talk for "giving it to my cronies").
Why do we have to suffer for people denying reality ? Government spending is a black hole. Nothing that goes in comes back out. Every cent spent by Obama is a net loss for the economy.
Raising government spending, only raises the cost to everybody.
But why stop killing when you can have so much fun hurting babies ?
Here's another way of putting this that's no less correct : Obama forcing people to pay for killing babies. Because that's what "funding embrionic stem-cell research using taxpayer money" is.
(and btw, if one thing is NOT a solid foundation to build morality upon, it's star trek. If you don't know why don't you just "build one" upon the foundation that's worked thousands of years now ? On Jesus Christ).
I'm not entirely sure, but certain copyrights are strictly to the person(s) creating.
And demonstration is defineately one of them. Anybody involved in the production of a movie, or an album has the right to "demonstrate" the final product (the example in law books tend to be a job interview, so showing a movie you worked on as part of a job interview is something that cannot be taken away. Neither can "public performance"). This is a personal right that cannot be sold, just like one cannot sell oneself into slavery.
The only way you could make this stick (and the record company would have to sue Lars first, this is not criminal law), is to claim not just that he downloaded it, but that he knowingly distributed it too others (which is -apart from the knowingly- indeed something most filesharing apps do).
Nobody's forcing you to use their products. Feel free to keep corporations out of your life...
Who, exactly is standing in your way ? Oh right, by "intellectual disobedience" you mean you want all their products for free, that they should give up everything, first their profit and then, inevitably, their very existence.
That too would cost you the use of their products obviously.
Take out the satellites ? Have you looked at the complexity of that ?
These are people that have trouble with the complexities of killing 6-month old babies. Satellites are long beyond their reach.
But you should realize that the balance of civilization versus terrorists is currently being held in favor of civilization by the dismal ability of terrorists to strike. They're pathetic, currently. They will not stay that way.
NOT blocking stuff like GPS and google earth obviously raises their abilities. It makes things easier for them (and for us, doing legal stuff, yes I know).
So not doing anything accelerates the next fase in the war on terror, when regular strikes become a fact of life in the US and Europe, just as they are a fact of life in the middle east. Then we will, like the middle east, be forced to attack anyone related ideologically to the terrorists, even if they have not themselves done anything wrong. Given the choice between attacking imams and dying, we both know what any sane person will choose.
That's the problem with powerful technology : the more powerful, the more you have to trust the people that have their hands on it's buttons. Once you go to far, you have little choice, but attacking those hands on those buttons.
You could also interpret it as admitting the guilt of their users.
They are fully aware of the illegality of the actions of their users and just claim that those users tricked them somehow into allowing copyright violations.
This is a coward's defence. These are NOT the beliefs & purposes stated on their site. They're just meant to get the judge to say a few words, after which their supposed respect for the law will disappear entirely.
It also makes any victory or defeat in this case entirely hollow. This case will not change what is legal in relation to copyright law, but merely what you get to weasel out of.
This is why you can't build a model by looking at a list of numbers. You have to actually understand the source of the data. For example, to go back to the weather example: you can't forecast temperature by looking at a temperature log. You have to actually know something about the sun and oceans and wind and stuff.;-)
If this is true, then why don't we all just shut up ? After all, if the human mind doesn't build models by looking at numbers, then what does it do ? The inputs from our eyes and ears are nothing but numbers. Our mind is merely a number crunching machine. Clearly such a thing could never produce useful output, according to you, so...
So let's just all go into the field, forget all civilization, start running after wild animals and kill them with our bare teeth.
After all, clearly the human mind is not intelligent. All this technology and culture and religion and... is just an illusion.
Obviously you *can* build a model by looking at numbers. Yes some statistical methods are flawed, or the real world doesn't respect a few assumptions of statistics theory (those assumptions, after all, are there because they simplify the theory, not because they're necessarily true, big, widely acknowledged, example : the conditional independance assumption, while in the real world no 2 realistic events are conditionally independant)
While the CRA had direct loans in it, it also had consequences for banks who loaned incorrectly.
These rules were used by a little organisation called "acorn" (don't look up which well-known black man has too much to do with these bastards, you will regret doing so), to give banks a choice :
make stupid loans - or leave
There are 2 parts to the CRA. Not just one. It's just convenient on your part to say "paragraph one didn't cause problems", in a law with 200 paragraphs.
But you're right, the mortgages granted specifically by the CRA were government-backed, and while they certainly did not help, those were not the problem.
The rules of conduct for banks for other mortgages specified in that same law were.
What is it with congresscritters and putting totally unrelated rules in one law ? I mean there are laws getting passed that specify the minimum diameter of an oil drill and whether you can carry hairspary in a women's bag.
*ahem* they were forbidden from doing their homework by the CRA. Doing your homework, as a lender, means discriminating against the unemployed (does this really need an explanation ?). That's racist man. Especially since, and I don't care why this is, useless whiny extremist believers of faith x, tend to, well not be productive members of society.
This bubble is simply the result of the bank's (forced) reaction to that law.
It was not "just" a bank that stopped doing it's homework, it was primarily freddie mac and fannie mae, who did so under direct orders from house democrats, supported, first by Jimmy Carter then Bill Clinton (and opposed, ineffectively like most things he did, by George Bush).
Can anyone explain me, by the way, why the government is in the business of loaning money in the first place ?
The only thing that made bubbles more severe in the past was the government trying to fix them.
This is basic economic theory, which is, obviously, a model.
Of course we're doing it all over again.
The problem was created by the government blocking normal market functioning (by using the CRA), and now it will be worsened and prolonged by the government attempting to fix the problem.
The problem is not models. The problem is people totally unable to accept temporary setbacks. If we just let the banks go under last year, the crisis would have been just about over today. Thanks to Bush's caving to wall street which prolonged the crisis a little bit, and now infinitely multiplied by obama's demagogic "let's save everybody" attitude, we are going to get clobbered financially for at least 2 years, more probably 10 years.
But let's not give all the blame to Bush and Obama, since there is a more than hefty helping of blame that rightfully belongs to congress democrats, especially Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They may even have forced Bush' hand.
And that's assuming everybody is wrong, and that this crisis is significantly less serious than the crisis of the 1930's. If it isn't, prepare for war.
Actually the assumption is this. "Lousy" mortgages are mortgages with 12% chance of default (and this was extremely high, most were something like 2% or so).
So let's calculate what happens : 1000 "lousy" mortgages, $200000/house, profit if fully paid back = $20000, over 20 years, profit in case of default = value of house (which rose about 1% per year on average). Default occurs "on average" after 1 year.
So let's see :
Initial investment : 1000 * -$200000 = -200000000 Income from defaults : 120 * ( $200000 + 1% * $200000) = $24240000 Income from success : 880 * ( $200000 + $20000 ) = $24240000
Total profit : $24240000
I dare you to find the flaw in these numbers. Yet there was a flaw. Without an education in statistics you will not see this coming, and even if you do, it's not trivial at all :
That 12% failure rate was non-uniformly distributed. So what happened ? First 10 to 15 years nobody defaulted, resulting in a house price hike that was a lot higher than anticipated (and therefore further increasing the profits and decreasing the risk to the banks), and then, after 16 years of tiny amounts of failure, huge amounts of people started defaulting all at once, causing a massive decrease in house prices.
This is where the theory of "let's just support the banks for one year and they'll pull through" theory comes from. IF default rates drop massively it will work.
So why did this break the banks ? Well due to hedge funds. Hedge funds are the equivalent of using borrowed money in a casino. If you win, it multiplies your winnings. If you lose, it multiplies your losses. When a small loss accumulated, it was massively multiplied (as in a factor of 1000 was not rare) by hedge fund managers. Whether the "smaller" original loss would have been enough to topple banks, we'll never know. One thing is for certain, all these "oh I predicted it" hedge fund managers are like the devil laughing at his victims burning... they're not innocent of the crash, at all. They're the maffia bosses who massively profit by making loans they KNEW the debtors wouldn't be able to repay.
And now they act all "I told you so".
They saw a disaster coming, and by worsening the disaster, they made their fortune. These people should be hanged from the highest available flagpole, not celebrated.
Exactly. EVERY model that only sees rising house prices during it's data collection phase WILL assume that house prices will keep rising, and therefore tell bankers that dodgy mortgages are ok.
After all, as long as house prices keep rising, there is NO risk whatsoever in dodgy mortgages. Either you get the stated intrest (buyer pays mortgage) or you get the price rise of the house since the buyer bought it with your money (in the case of default)... the risk of losing money in the deal is EXACTLY the chance that house prices drop. And house prices never dropped (significantly) in over 50 years... obviously any statistical algorithm would have told you the risk was minimal.
Believe it or not they can have a variety of targeting parameters. They can track radar (the AIM-9C), they can do gps targeting too if necessary (so a lock on a cell phone, given a hostile program on said cell phone, would be possible).
Any rocket that can track radar can be set to track a fof tranceiver.
Well as long as they're using rare earth metals, they will never become available. Their supply is much too limited.
Cadmium may not be that expensive, and not that super-rare (though calling the supply abundant would be a stretch), there is barely any tellurium supply.
From the wikipedia page:
Tellurium is extremely rare, one of the nine rarest metallic elements on Earth. It is in the same chemical family as oxygen, sulfur, selenium, and polonium (the chalcogens).
And the reality is... of all the atoms in the universe (and "more or less" on earth) you have the following relation, for every ton of gold in existence (on earth), there's about 100 grams of Tellurium available.
It's not expensive, because no-one's using it. But if you start mass-producing anything with tellurium in it that cheapness will disappear sooner than you can say "exhausted supply".
It would probably be a very good investment to buy (right now) a ton or so of tellurium and put in your basement. Perhaps a bit unorthodox an investment, but before 20 years pass it will be many times more valuable than gold or platinum. Right now it costs between $70 and $100 per pound. You can reasonably expect that to become at least several thousand within the next ten years.
It's a custom helicopter (just like air force 1 is a custom plane). You could for example get some sort of unique radar response from the plane, telling you the location of the helicopter, or worse, giving you something to program a sidewinder with.
Same goes for air force 1. If you had the specs of it's fof tranceiver you could wait until it's crossing the atlantic, then launch a rocket towards it which they have no chance to evade.
Basically it would reduce the problem of killing the president of the USA from successfully attacking a wide range of security forces, just to make sure you cover all angles, to the problem of making 1 tiny pinpoint strike. With the blueprints or a location indicator you'd could execute a pinpoint strike that would take involve almost no risk for the perpetrators and would sure as hell kill the prsident.
Slashdot Mirror
So science is invalid if it involves too many feelings ? I guess we better close the psychology departments nationwide. Let's shut history departments too, because they too involve way, way to many societal trends, which are often quite a bit more nebulous than any statistical experiment ...
Humans are not "magically" beyond the reach of science, and neither are feelings, or actions of persons.
Is illustrating dumb statistical mistakes useful somehow ? I obviously assumed that there are no statistical mistakes involved in the relevant studies.
Obviously you need sufficient data, over a sufficiently long period of time.
(and to be honest I can imagine hurricane damage necessitating government savings, and therefore teacher layoffs, so a (very) weak correlation is indeed not out of the question)
It only shows _some_ connection, which may be very convoluted (but always real) between 2 data SETS (and 1 data point, like you gave, obviously proves nothing, there are rules about that) (and before you say it, one studies equals obviously exactly the amount of data points they claim to have researched, excepting fraud)
To be exact, correlation implies one of 3 things :
- Causation
- Caused-by (passive)
- Shared-cause
So translated to, if criminals correlate to players of violent games this means one of 3 things :
1) Playing games causes crime
2) Crime causes playing game
3) Playing violent games and criminal behavior have the same cause
Right now they're "assuming" 1) is fact. Since 2 seems unlikely in the extreme, the other is 3, which means that if you try to buy a violent game, regardless of any other factor, it would be a good idea to arrest you, since you probably already are a criminal (instead of merely more prone to violent behavior)
You expect the people (ie. the government) to expect something back from "stimuli", piles of cash. Probably you mean something other than the customary (in Chicago, at least) "election" support like slanted coverage.
You must be missing the Bush administration already ...
That ship sailed when "I have no opinion one way or the other, but don't you really hate THAT guy ?" got elected.
People don't hate Jesus. They hate reality. They hate that God has power they will never have, and America's about to find out that God's laws are entirely unlike human laws.
The country WILL fail due to unreasonable spending by the Obama adminstration, no matter how much money is printed "trying to avert it" (that's Obama-talk for "giving it to my cronies").
Why do we have to suffer for people denying reality ? Government spending is a black hole. Nothing that goes in comes back out. Every cent spent by Obama is a net loss for the economy.
Raising government spending, only raises the cost to everybody.
So this "imaginary friend" is the only reason you might want to refrain from killing ?
Nice to hear a few atheists finally admit it.
It is -now for over 8 months- not necessary anymore to terminate babies in order to create stem cells.
first hit on google
But why stop killing when you can have so much fun hurting babies ?
Here's another way of putting this that's no less correct : Obama forcing people to pay for killing babies. Because that's what "funding embrionic stem-cell research using taxpayer money" is.
(and btw, if one thing is NOT a solid foundation to build morality upon, it's star trek. If you don't know why don't you just "build one" upon the foundation that's worked thousands of years now ? On Jesus Christ).
I'm not entirely sure, but certain copyrights are strictly to the person(s) creating.
And demonstration is defineately one of them. Anybody involved in the production of a movie, or an album has the right to "demonstrate" the final product (the example in law books tend to be a job interview, so showing a movie you worked on as part of a job interview is something that cannot be taken away. Neither can "public performance"). This is a personal right that cannot be sold, just like one cannot sell oneself into slavery.
The only way you could make this stick (and the record company would have to sue Lars first, this is not criminal law), is to claim not just that he downloaded it, but that he knowingly distributed it too others (which is -apart from the knowingly- indeed something most filesharing apps do).
Nobody's forcing you to use their products. Feel free to keep corporations out of your life ...
Who, exactly is standing in your way ? Oh right, by "intellectual disobedience" you mean you want all their products for free, that they should give up everything, first their profit and then, inevitably, their very existence.
That too would cost you the use of their products obviously.
UDF is for non-eraseable media "only". That's not to say it can't be used at all for things like usb sticks, but it would be unwieldy in the extreme.
Actually there are rights that cannot be sold. A musician keeps the right to "demonstrate" his own music.
As such, there are certain rights that remain Lars's, as author of the work, no matter what he signed.
I'm pretty sure listening to his own creation falls under that one. Performing it does too.
Take out the satellites ? Have you looked at the complexity of that ?
These are people that have trouble with the complexities of killing 6-month old babies. Satellites are long beyond their reach.
But you should realize that the balance of civilization versus terrorists is currently being held in favor of civilization by the dismal ability of terrorists to strike. They're pathetic, currently. They will not stay that way.
NOT blocking stuff like GPS and google earth obviously raises their abilities. It makes things easier for them (and for us, doing legal stuff, yes I know).
So not doing anything accelerates the next fase in the war on terror, when regular strikes become a fact of life in the US and Europe, just as they are a fact of life in the middle east. Then we will, like the middle east, be forced to attack anyone related ideologically to the terrorists, even if they have not themselves done anything wrong. Given the choice between attacking imams and dying, we both know what any sane person will choose.
That's the problem with powerful technology : the more powerful, the more you have to trust the people that have their hands on it's buttons. Once you go to far, you have little choice, but attacking those hands on those buttons.
You could also interpret it as admitting the guilt of their users.
They are fully aware of the illegality of the actions of their users and just claim that those users tricked them somehow into allowing copyright violations.
This is a coward's defence. These are NOT the beliefs & purposes stated on their site. They're just meant to get the judge to say a few words, after which their supposed respect for the law will disappear entirely.
It also makes any victory or defeat in this case entirely hollow. This case will not change what is legal in relation to copyright law, but merely what you get to weasel out of.
This is why you can't build a model by looking at a list of numbers. You have to actually understand the source of the data. For example, to go back to the weather example: you can't forecast temperature by looking at a temperature log. You have to actually know something about the sun and oceans and wind and stuff. ;-)
If this is true, then why don't we all just shut up ? After all, if the human mind doesn't build models by looking at numbers, then what does it do ? The inputs from our eyes and ears are nothing but numbers. Our mind is merely a number crunching machine. Clearly such a thing could never produce useful output, according to you, so ...
So let's just all go into the field, forget all civilization, start running after wild animals and kill them with our bare teeth.
After all, clearly the human mind is not intelligent. All this technology and culture and religion and ... is just an illusion.
Obviously you *can* build a model by looking at numbers. Yes some statistical methods are flawed, or the real world doesn't respect a few assumptions of statistics theory (those assumptions, after all, are there because they simplify the theory, not because they're necessarily true, big, widely acknowledged, example : the conditional independance assumption, while in the real world no 2 realistic events are conditionally independant)
While the CRA had direct loans in it, it also had consequences for banks who loaned incorrectly.
These rules were used by a little organisation called "acorn" (don't look up which well-known black man has too much to do with these bastards, you will regret doing so), to give banks a choice :
make stupid loans - or leave
There are 2 parts to the CRA. Not just one. It's just convenient on your part to say "paragraph one didn't cause problems", in a law with 200 paragraphs.
But you're right, the mortgages granted specifically by the CRA were government-backed, and while they certainly did not help, those were not the problem.
The rules of conduct for banks for other mortgages specified in that same law were.
What is it with congresscritters and putting totally unrelated rules in one law ? I mean there are laws getting passed that specify the minimum diameter of an oil drill and whether you can carry hairspary in a women's bag.
*ahem* they were forbidden from doing their homework by the CRA. Doing your homework, as a lender, means discriminating against the unemployed (does this really need an explanation ?). That's racist man. Especially since, and I don't care why this is, useless whiny extremist believers of faith x, tend to, well not be productive members of society.
This bubble is simply the result of the bank's (forced) reaction to that law.
It was not "just" a bank that stopped doing it's homework, it was primarily freddie mac and fannie mae, who did so under direct orders from house democrats, supported, first by Jimmy Carter then Bill Clinton (and opposed, ineffectively like most things he did, by George Bush).
Can anyone explain me, by the way, why the government is in the business of loaning money in the first place ?
Google "AIM-9C" ...
The only thing that made bubbles more severe in the past was the government trying to fix them.
This is basic economic theory, which is, obviously, a model.
Of course we're doing it all over again.
The problem was created by the government blocking normal market functioning (by using the CRA), and now it will be worsened and prolonged by the government attempting to fix the problem.
The problem is not models. The problem is people totally unable to accept temporary setbacks. If we just let the banks go under last year, the crisis would have been just about over today. Thanks to Bush's caving to wall street which prolonged the crisis a little bit, and now infinitely multiplied by obama's demagogic "let's save everybody" attitude, we are going to get clobbered financially for at least 2 years, more probably 10 years.
But let's not give all the blame to Bush and Obama, since there is a more than hefty helping of blame that rightfully belongs to congress democrats, especially Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. They may even have forced Bush' hand.
And that's assuming everybody is wrong, and that this crisis is significantly less serious than the crisis of the 1930's. If it isn't, prepare for war.
Actually the assumption is this. "Lousy" mortgages are mortgages with 12% chance of default (and this was extremely high, most were something like 2% or so).
So let's calculate what happens :
1000 "lousy" mortgages, $200000/house, profit if fully paid back = $20000, over 20 years, profit in case of default = value of house (which rose about 1% per year on average). Default occurs "on average" after 1 year.
So let's see :
Initial investment : 1000 * -$200000 = -200000000
Income from defaults : 120 * ( $200000 + 1% * $200000) = $24240000
Income from success : 880 * ( $200000 + $20000 ) = $24240000
Total profit : $24240000
I dare you to find the flaw in these numbers. Yet there was a flaw. Without an education in statistics you will not see this coming, and even if you do, it's not trivial at all :
That 12% failure rate was non-uniformly distributed. So what happened ? First 10 to 15 years nobody defaulted, resulting in a house price hike that was a lot higher than anticipated (and therefore further increasing the profits and decreasing the risk to the banks), and then, after 16 years of tiny amounts of failure, huge amounts of people started defaulting all at once, causing a massive decrease in house prices.
This is where the theory of "let's just support the banks for one year and they'll pull through" theory comes from. IF default rates drop massively it will work.
So why did this break the banks ? Well due to hedge funds. Hedge funds are the equivalent of using borrowed money in a casino. If you win, it multiplies your winnings. If you lose, it multiplies your losses. When a small loss accumulated, it was massively multiplied (as in a factor of 1000 was not rare) by hedge fund managers. Whether the "smaller" original loss would have been enough to topple banks, we'll never know. One thing is for certain, all these "oh I predicted it" hedge fund managers are like the devil laughing at his victims burning ... they're not innocent of the crash, at all. They're the maffia bosses who massively profit by making loans they KNEW the debtors wouldn't be able to repay.
And now they act all "I told you so".
They saw a disaster coming, and by worsening the disaster, they made their fortune. These people should be hanged from the highest available flagpole, not celebrated.
Fantastic flash explanation
The problem with that way of thinking is that we know relatively little of the model's inherent limitations.
Obviously the model should keep into account that over 60% of the housing market is being subjected to it's output.
This, however, invalidates the "law of large numbers" assumption of statistics, and will render any statistical model inaccurate.
So what's left, really, is to do a full simulation, simulate every indiidual. And that's not currently a tractable problem.
Exactly. EVERY model that only sees rising house prices during it's data collection phase WILL assume that house prices will keep rising, and therefore tell bankers that dodgy mortgages are ok.
After all, as long as house prices keep rising, there is NO risk whatsoever in dodgy mortgages. Either you get the stated intrest (buyer pays mortgage) or you get the price rise of the house since the buyer bought it with your money (in the case of default) ... the risk of losing money in the deal is EXACTLY the chance that house prices drop. And house prices never dropped (significantly) in over 50 years ... obviously any statistical algorithm would have told you the risk was minimal.
Believe it or not they can have a variety of targeting parameters. They can track radar (the AIM-9C), they can do gps targeting too if necessary (so a lock on a cell phone, given a hostile program on said cell phone, would be possible).
Any rocket that can track radar can be set to track a fof tranceiver.
Well as long as they're using rare earth metals, they will never become available. Their supply is much too limited.
Cadmium may not be that expensive, and not that super-rare (though calling the supply abundant would be a stretch), there is barely any tellurium supply.
From the wikipedia page :
Tellurium is extremely rare, one of the nine rarest metallic elements on Earth. It is in the same chemical family as oxygen, sulfur, selenium, and polonium (the chalcogens).
And the reality is ... of all the atoms in the universe (and "more or less" on earth) you have the following relation, for every ton of gold in existence (on earth), there's about 100 grams of Tellurium available.
It's not expensive, because no-one's using it. But if you start mass-producing anything with tellurium in it that cheapness will disappear sooner than you can say "exhausted supply".
It would probably be a very good investment to buy (right now) a ton or so of tellurium and put in your basement. Perhaps a bit unorthodox an investment, but before 20 years pass it will be many times more valuable than gold or platinum. Right now it costs between $70 and $100 per pound. You can reasonably expect that to become at least several thousand within the next ten years.
Source ?
It's a custom helicopter (just like air force 1 is a custom plane). You could for example get some sort of unique radar response from the plane, telling you the location of the helicopter, or worse, giving you something to program a sidewinder with.
Same goes for air force 1. If you had the specs of it's fof tranceiver you could wait until it's crossing the atlantic, then launch a rocket towards it which they have no chance to evade.
Basically it would reduce the problem of killing the president of the USA from successfully attacking a wide range of security forces, just to make sure you cover all angles, to the problem of making 1 tiny pinpoint strike. With the blueprints or a location indicator you'd could execute a pinpoint strike that would take involve almost no risk for the perpetrators and would sure as hell kill the prsident.